Thursday, January 31, 2008

"Waaahhh!!! These elections are rigged! It's as if they were heavily biased in favor of the candidates who have actual support, or something! Why can't these debates be more like youtube, where a vocal minority can spam anyone we disagree with into oblivion? It's not fair, dammit!"

If Ron Paul can't even handle a simple debate, then how the fuck does he expect to run an entire country?

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Rudy Giuliani has officially dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain. Will the Paultards please stop using "But Ron Paul beat Rudy!" as a talking point now? Big whoop, Ron Paul beat some guy who only won one delegate and isn't even running anymore. Real impressive.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Thanks to Wonkette for picking this up. Chances are, you've seen the tactic used by Paultards in the past. But now, when people use this tactic, you can feel free to mock them by by citing this thread.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

If you check out Ron Paul's official campaign website, you'll notice that one of his endorsements comes from a man name Jacob Bogle. Who is Jacob Bogle?

Jacob Bogle is actually the Chairman of the Southern Party of Tennessee, the Tennessee Division Commander of the Southern Confederate Front, the former Vice Chairman of the Southern Independence Party of Tennessee and oh yes, the creator of the Jefferson Davis Fan Club. In other words he's a neo-confederate and he does not appear to be a working minister.

Friday, January 25, 2008

I went to a restaurant last night (secret place–I ain’t like those paparazzi pap-smears who make got-damn sure everyone in the world knows when they’re eating at a restaurant), and I had to take a shit. So I excused myself from the table, walked back to the men’s room, picked a stall, dropped my pants, and sat my black ass down on the cold motherfucking porcelain. Relaxed a bit, let it all fall out. Between the first and second shit-package, my ass made a sound not unlike “Ron Paul”. The next thing I knew, there were fifteen Ron Paul supporters outside the got-damn door, gyrating and blogging and commenting on how wonderful my Sam Jack shit was. Now, I know for fact that if I’d farted out a good “Mitt Romney,” wouldn’t nobody have done so much as a golf-clap.

Hi, folks. Paul Henry here; you may be familiar with my Ron Paul diaries on Daily Kos, including the story I broke (picked up here) about Randy Gray, Ron Paul's official county coordinator for Midland County, Michigan, who also turns out to be an organizer with a faction of the Ku Klux Klan. Shortly after I began inquiring about the situation, all traces of Gray quietly disappeared from both the national and Michigan campaign Web sites, without any statement from the campaign on the matter... or so I thought. Last Sunday, Michigan field coordinator Leslie Roszman--to her credit--finally addressed the matter with a statement posted at ronpaul2008.com:

“It has come to my attention that one of our volunteers here in Michigan, Randy Gray, has affiliations with a racist and hateful organization. He was appointed to the volunteer position of county organizer for one of Michigan’s 83 counties. Randy Gray was not forthcoming about his background and he was in clear violation of the campaign’s code of conduct for volunteers. No one affiliated with racist organizations would ever knowingly be allowed to have any role with the campaign. Dr. Paul’s philosophy of freedom and individual liberty is the antithesis of racism.”

The Saginaw News subsequently ran a story on the matter, as did WNEM-TV, the CBS affiliate in Saginaw (if anyone has video of this story, I'd love to see it). Meanwhile, our old friends over at ronpaulforums.com deal with this story the only way they know how: deny, deny, deny.

"I'm still trying to figure out why racists would be attracted to Ron Paul. He is for individual liberty and they are not. I think they are plants."

"Maybe we should be focusing on the actual candidate they support instead of their supporters. The more KKK supporters the better. Right now I am inviting all KKK to join Ron Paul. All this means is more support for Ron Paul."

It's not easy trying to keep up with all of the silliness that surrounds Ron Paul, and usually I try to pace myself. But for the readers who would like to see more, here are some other blogs you can check out:

First off, there's the Ron Paul Tumblelog. This site focuses on brief, easy to digest snippets. The Ron Paul Tumblelog includes a few news items that I didn't report on this site, but which I probably should have. These include:

Current blimp status. Epic fail. The Ron Paul blimp ran out of funding, and couldn't even succeed in making it's final trip to Boca Raton. Included is a link to the delusional fan reaction, crying conspiracy theory.

Next up, there's Revolusion 2008, by Sultan Knish. Sultan's claim to fame is his Pulitzer Prize winning reporting on DaronWestbrooke, poster child for the Ron Paulogist movement, and for his analysis ont he use of first person accounts in Ron Paul's newsletter. Sultan mainly focuses on finding amusing bits from Paultards for easy laughs.

Finally, there's Andrew Austin's blog, Freedom and Reason. Although it's not really a Paul specific blog, it does write a lot against him. Austin takes a much more academic approach, and was the one who located the microfilm proving that Ron Paul voted against MLK Day.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

A Paultard by the name of hedonisticpleasureseeker recently posted to the comments thread, bragging about how Ron Paul recently recieved over 100,000 endorsements. And not just any old endorsements, either, but endorsements from "bigwigs in academia, business, science, finance, media, and economics, all of whom say RP is "dead on" in his assessments of the economy and the state of human and civil rights in the U.S." That's a pretty bold claim. The source? Well, apparently, it came from a from a Digg link to a forum posting:The original thread was posted back in November, and the Digg submission was only posted two days ago. Yet the Digg submission has managed to receive one Digg for ever three page views (And keep in mind that most people will visit a thread more than one time, in order to check out new postings). Also keep in mind that the forum post in question doesn't include a convenient "Digg this" button on it. This is strong evidence of the fact that Paultards will Digg just about everything on Digg without actually bothering to read it first. It also suggests that although Paultards are relatively small in numbers, they benefit from the fact that a disproportionately large number of them are spammers and Diggbots. A forum post with only a few hundred views can magically achieve 70 Diggs, just by saying something favorable about Ron Paul.

BTW, what exactly is the methodology of the page? Well, it's not just flawed, it manages to completely live up to the title of "Paultard. Apparently some guy ran the phrase "endorses Ron Paul" through google, got 100,000 hits, and concluded that every hit represents an individual bigwig endorsement. By the same Paultard logic, we can safely conclude that Al Gore didn't just win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that he won it over 4,000 different times. Honestly, only a Paultard could find this type of argument convincing.

Oh yeah, and the original thread which claims that Keith Olbermann backs Ron Paul? Yeah, that's just as dishonest as anything else you can come to expect from the Paultards. It links to a youtube video where Keith Olbermann states that "The crowd at a Republican debate booed not Ron Paul, not Adolf Hitler, but John McCain," and interprets that as an endorsement for Ron Paul. By that same deluded Paultard logic, it would also be an endorsement for Adolph Hitler. I'm pretty sure that Keith Olbermann wasn't endorsing Adolph Hitler.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The Paultards are continuing their tactic of reading endorsements into situations where no endorsement exists. From Wonkette:

In one of the better recent threads at Ron Paul Forums yesterday, someone floated the idea of courting Neil Armstrong’s support based on a blurb from the famous astronaut’s Wikipedia page: “The first man to walk on the Moon was also approached by political parties from both ends of the spectrum. Unlike former astronauts and United States Senators John Glenn and Harrison Schmitt, Armstrong has turned down all offers.” Later in the thread however, Armstrong’s ties with the CORPORATES are revealed — he’s a Freemason and a Skull & Bonesman, it seems, and therefore made up the moon landing!

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul joined a Tuesday Washington, DC protest of the Supreme Court decision that paved the way for legal abortions in the United States. The anti-war and pro-liberty candidate showed that pro-life positions were also a central part of his political agenda in an address before the 2008 "March For Life."

The Paultards will ask if Ron Paul's stance on abortion really matters. Well, Ron Paul seems to think that it does. Why can't the people who are actually affected by his policies think the same?

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

In his attempt to deflect accusations of racism, Ron Paul is quick to bring up his stance against the war on drugs. For instance, in his infamous CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul made the following argument:

"So they join me in this position I have against the war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidates will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes."

For the moment, let's ignore Ron Paul's implication that helping out the drug community is the same thing as helping out the black community. And let's ignore the fact that just because you oppose the war on drugs doesn't exempt you from being a racist. Instead, let's look at Ron Paul's own writings and Ron Paul's own history. He may claims that his stance against the war on drugs proves that he's the anti-racist, but does his own website support him on this?

A quick search on Ron Paul's website pulls up four articles about the war on drugs. But his actual opposition to the war on drugs has absolutely nothing to do with race. Ron Paul is not against the war on drugs because he sees it as a war on black people, he's against the war on drugs because he sees it as a war on doctors, and a war on pain relief. Yes, black people do seem to account for a disproportionate number of drug arrests for things like cocaine relative to actual usage, and that's a major problem. But Ron Paul's articles don't seem to address drugs such as cocaine. Instead, he focuses on the drug laws surrounding things like OxyContin. If you actually read Ron Paul's writings on the subject, he's not terribly concerned with helping out the minorities of the world. He seems to be more concerned with helping out people like Rush Limbaugh:

"Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush The controversy surrounding popular radio host Rush Limbaugh’s use of the painkiller OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. In most cases patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, so doctors become the target of overzealous federal prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to ordinary doctors prescribing perfectly legal drugs. Federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers are being abused to ensnare innocent doctors.

It looks like the Paultards are now attempting to spin Ron Paul's defense of Rush Limbaugh into an example of how Ron Paul is a champion of minority rights. The record disagrees. His latest comments on CNN are a reflection of political opportunism, rather than genuine advocacy. Of all the minorities who are currently being arrested on drug charges, how many of them are being arrested for OxyContin? Of Ron Paul's four articles on the war on drugs, three of them center around pain killers, and two of them center around Rush Limbaugh. None of them center on race.

As we all know, the Paultards attempted to prove how anti-racist they are by changing the focus of Martin Luther King Day into a massive fundraising event for the man who voted against it. They were hoping to break brand new records in both cash and donors, and ended up failing miserably on both counts. The $1.85 million that Ron Paul raised for himself yesterday might sound impressive, but it was less than half of what they raised for Guy Fawkes Day, and a third of what they raised for blimp inauguration day. Apparently, the Paultards care more about a failed British terrorist who attempted to commit mass murder for the sake of issuing a Catholic Monarchy than they care about Martin Luther King. It isn't even close.

Is the Ron Paul voter base starting to dry out? Well, maybe not. It looks like David Duke, the Anti-Racist Grand Wizard, hosted his own money bomb yesterday. So perhaps Ron Paul's voter base is just strong as its ever been, but the people who would normally vote for Ron Paul would rather spend their money on Robert E. Lee?

Wonkette provided the above video of one of the Paultard MLK marches. Ron Paul supporters are to Martin Luther King Day what the Cadbury Bunny is to Jesus. The only minority I spotted during the rally up at the 1:00 mark. He's not holding any sign and keeps avoiding the camera, so he may simply be a bystander who was trying to catch a cab. At the 2:30 mark, you see a guy with a Guy Fawkes mask. Because, you know, Martin Luther King and Guy Fawkes are totally interchangeable.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

So it looks like the the online Paultard-ary will be renewed for another two months. Ron Paul scored second place in Nevada, which will likely fuel another round of conspiracy theories, delusions, and accusations of media censorship.

Although Ron Paul managed to score second, it's the least impressive second place in the entire race, but in terms of raw percentage, and in terms of the difference between first and second place. Mitt Romney earned nearly four times as many votes as Ron Paul, so it's not as though Ron is nipping at his heels.

Turnout was low. Really low. To put it into perspective, Mitt Romney barely earned more votes in Nevada than what Dennis Kucinich earned in Michigan. Ron Paul received half as many votes in Nevada compared to what Bill Richardson earned in Nevada. Which just goes to show, Paultards tend to do better in the races where other people don't catch up, because those are the ones that are the easiest to spam.

Because of the predicted low turnout, the other candidates didn't bother to make an effort. Ron Paul had radio and TV advertisements almost entirely to himself.

In terms of raw percentage, 13% isn't that much of an improvement compared to how well Ron Paul has done in other races.

Anyway, none of this will shut the Paultards up, who desperately need something, anything that they can cling to. Remember, these people are conspiracy theorists, they'll take what they can get. My suggestion is to reply with a snarky remark, like "Gee, that's really impressive. It would be even more impressive if anyone actually bothered to show up." If you have your own suggestions, feel free to put them in the comments.

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

In anticipation of his upcoming MLK Day money bomb, Ron Paul has decided that the best way to prove that he isn't a racist is by appearing as a guest speaker at Bob Jones University. For those of you who aren't familiar with the controversy, Bob Jones University refused to admit black students until the 1970s, and only for the sake of maintaining their tax exempt status. The school is also infamous for their policy against interracial dating.

A few days ago, I went on a tangent about Ron Paul's refusal to award Rosa Parks a congressional medal, despite calling her one of her heroes. A lot of Paultards are even tasteless enough to cite his speech against her medal as evidence against being racist. So let's get this out in the open, once and for all:

Ron Paul claims that the bill is immoral because it uses tax-payer money. False. If Ron Paul had actually read the bill, which was only a few pages long, then he would known that the medal would have been funded through the sell of replicas.

Ron Paul claims that the medal would be unconstitutional. False. Congress has been giving out medals since 1776. Obviously, the founding fathers didn't mind.

Ron Paul claims that the medal wasn't in the spirit of Rosa Parks. False. Rosa Parks was still alive at the time. If she didn't approve of a medal, doesn't Ron Paul think that Parks would have said so? It's not like she's a stranger to standing up for herself. What gives Ron Paul the authority to speak on her behalf?

The Paultards would like to brag that Ron Paul thinks of Rosa Parks as his hero, and how he heroically volunteered to donate $100 for it if he could avoid charging the tax payers. But did he go through with it, by purchasing replica? Or did he make the promise, and then not go through with it? We don't know. But since Ron Paul continues to insist that he volunteered to pay $100, rather than simply saying that he purchased a regular to contribute to her fund, it seems unlikely.

Tired of seeing Paultards messing up public property? SpencerSHU has the right idea. Here's huge gallery of Ron Paul Chalk art, available on flickr. These were put up last October. I don't have an account on flickr, but if anyone could give him a heads up about this site, that would be nice.

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I haven't had any to display until now. Anyway, in light of the recent election results, there will be some Paultards who will feel demoralized, and others who will feel that they need to work harder than ever. For the second group, here's a flyer that you can use to send them a message:In related news, somethingawful.com just created a page called the Ron Paul Political Report: Kidz Page. It features some printable graphics for general mockery.

So for months, the Paultards have been telling us that Ron Paul's results among republicans didn't matter, because he would steal so many votes from the democrats and the republicans. In Michigan, they got to put that idea to the test, since Michigan didn't have any delegates for the democrats, Obama and Edwards didn't participate, and people were allowed to cross party lines. How did Ron Paul fare? Not so well. Stick a fork in him, Jim.

On a different note, here's a question I've been having for a while: A lot of Paultards will defend Ron Paul's opposition to the Rosa Parks medal, because it's unconstitutional. But what, specifically make a congressional medal constitutional? I mean, would military medals be unconstitutional as well? After looking into the matter, it turns out that the first congressional medal was awarded in 1776 to George Washington, and they've been given out ever since. But for some reason, Ron Paul is apparently the first man in American history to find this unconstitutional. Thank you, Ron Paul, for displaying that your strict adherence to the constitution is more rigid than the founding fathers themselves.

It's also weird, when you consider that just last month, Ron Paul was on TV saying that the civil war was unnecessary, and that Lincoln should have compensated slave owners in exchange for freeing the slaves. Where in the constitution does it allow for that? Where in America has there been a precedent for that? So rewarding slave owners with hard cash because they enslaved people is okay, but rewarding Rosa Park with a gold medal for her role in the civil rights movement is not? WTF? I guess that in Ron Paul's world, Rosa Parks deserves to be treated worse than a slave owner. Great. And people wonder why Ron Paul is called a racist.

Update: Here's a copy of the bill. The part about using taxpayer money? Wrong. The medal was paid for by the sale of replicas.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

How did we miss this one? The New Republic has gone up yet another notch, by providing yet another batch of Ron Paul's old newsletters. You can find them here. The most damning piece of information is that the fact that Ron Paul is listed as the editor and publisher. So Ron, if you weren't the editor and publisher, then who was? Was there a ghost editor that we should know about?

An undated personal solicitation letter--signed by Paul--asking the recipient to subscribe to his newsletter in anticipation of (presumably) the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential nominating convention.

The May 1988 Ron Paul Investment Letterlists Lew Rockwell as Editor. It also advertises books by the far-right conspiracy theorist Gary Allen, who was a contributing editor to the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

How will the Paultards spin themselves out of this one? If Ron Paul can find the time to list himself as the editor during his 1988 presidential run, then how can he claim that he didn't have time to work on it when his presidential campaign was over? As always, our FAQ be updated momentarily.

Meanwhile, the Paultards on Digg have ran a successful keeping this story buried. Media blackout, anyone? It's funny, because when you search for "Kirchick" or "Angry White Man," you'll find plenty of articles attempting to refute the piece (usually with nothing more than personal attacks against the author), but no actual reference to the piece itself. Kirchick's story has been featured on the national news and even forced CNN to defend himself, but apparently it doesn't meet the high standard of Digg.

As voters in Michigan go to the polls to vote in today's primary, volunteer coordinators for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are working hard across the state. One of these is Randy Gray, a 29-year-old resident of Midland, Michigan whom the Ron Paul 2008 Michigan Campaign Web site lists as the Midland County coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign. Gray's campaign profile page, a cached version of which can be seen here, doesn't go into much detail; there's a picture of Gray with the candidate, along with Gray's statement that "I support Ron Paul because he is in the fight for freedom." The page contains no mention of one of Gray's other roles: organizer with the Knight's Party faction of the Ku Klux Klan.

So the Paultards have shown us their latest attempt at posting internet humor: "Proof of Ron Paul's Racism! ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE!" It's apparently an entire page dedicated to every minority who has has ever been photographed next to Ron Paul, as if to say, "Hey, Ron Paul isn't racist, libertarians don't see color. And just to prove it, here's him standing next to someone, who's black."

It's roughly equivalent to finding a photo of Scott Peterson where he isn't murdering someone, and then writing a link entitled, "Proof of Scott Peterson's murder! ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE, lol!" That's not funny. That's not even offensive. That's just stupid. But, like DaronWestbrooke has demonstrated to us, that doesn't matter. The goal isn't to come up with a solid argument, the goal is to come up with an argument that you can repeat often enough so that the thought will eventually become reality.

The real problem with this attempt at humor is that there's no punchline. The only thing that it proves is that the creators are completely clueless on matters of race. Sorry, but you can't undo decades worth of overt racism with a few snapshots. It doesn't work like that. Frankly, it trivializes the entire civil rights movements.

That websites a joke right? If not I have to say I'm sort of appalled and EMBARRASSED by what I'm reading here. You make a WEBSITE dedicated to the fact that you happen to have black friends? Let me ask you this, if you think that having black friends is novelty enough that you'd make a corny poorly designed website dedicated to it.... you're singling out black people as somehow being different enough that it's strange for whites to befriend them. That as far as I'm concerned is a form of racism. By the way, the pictures that you've plastered all over your site are ridiculous. Unless this is in fact a joke site, I feel that you've basically eliminated all your credibility.

If you want someone who pulls off the same joke correctly, check blackpeopleloveus.com. See, this type of website is funny when Johnny and Sally do it, because they realize that the entire argument is a joke. One of the mock testimonials describe what the Paulards are going for pretty accurately: "Sally has a habit of showing me her running tally of the number of black people she greets everyday. I feel unique and special to be part of her statistical list."

Monday, January 14, 2008

A few days ago, we did a story on how Paultards were harassing an election worker named Jennifer Call, over their recent bout with soreloseritis. Now, it looks like the Paultards have an official explanation for their behavior: It's a conspiracy!

David805Member

Some reality's of life.

1. Yes.. SOME of our ... Supporters are nuts ..

2. Some of the people here are not supporters of Ron Paul but claim they are.

3. The possibility that the people who called/sent email's /etc to this woman threating her and calling her names. Are actually not Ron paul supporters but GOP or even Democrat's who are trying to soil Ron Paul's name is quite high.

4. The recount will be done.. UNTIL the recount is done and a investigation is done NO ONE knows exactly all the facts. So i Caution anyone from causing hysteria before there is some evidence to prove without a doubt that fraud took place.

5. Those people who did harass this poor woman do not support Ron Paul.. If they did they would never have done what they did.

6. Until Proof Beyond a shadow of a doubt is presented we can not rationaly form a INFORMED opinion about this issue.

Ah, the "libertarians are infallible and anything that says otherwise must therefore be wrong" fallacy. After all, Paultards would never amount to harassing people, right?

Edit: Reading through that thread, the most annoying thing about it are the Paultards who insist that "Saying that it was an honest mistake is not enough!", as though they've never made a mistake before in their entire lives. Honest mistakes happen. This was a mistake of minor consequence. The only thing you can do is correct your mistakes when they're pointed out to you, which she did. Which is a lot more than I can say for Ron Paul. What's done is done. What more do you want from her? At this point, the Paultards are just upset over their recent defeats, and they're just looking for someone to vent their frustrations on.

In other news, people are still complaining, "But if Ron Paul wrote those newsletters, then why would he oppose the war on drugs?" So to settle this, here's his solicitation letter. Check out page one, second to the last paragraph.

People wouldn't be digging so much dirt on Ron Paul unless he was innocent.

Stewart is a Mexican American, and Ron Paul never once spit on him.

Ron Paul is a libertarian, and libertarians are infallible. Ergo, Ron Paul is infallible.

How could Ron Paul possibly be a racist, when his own website denies it?

I failed high school history, and still don't know the difference between "socialist," "national socialist," and "not-libertarian."

Did you know that I'm not a Nazi? Therefore, Ron Paul can't be a racist.

Libertarianism and racism are antithetical. In fact, the only thing that we have in common with them is that we both want a lot more liberty.

Ron Paul is the champion of the constitution. He earned the title after a grudge match with Mr. T, who may or may not be black (Only collectivists see color).

It's absurd to say that the constitution was racist. In other news, slavery isn't racist.

Ron Paul denies the story on his website. I believe him. Why are we still discussing this?

Ron Paul does not interrogate all of his new hires on their view on race, and apparently not on whether or not they're qualified to write articles under Ron Paul's name in the first person detailing Ron Paul's personal experience before Ron Paul signs off on them.

I never heard a racist comment from any of the staff. The ghost writer was literally ghost like. As in, a dead person's intangible spirit. Remember the PBS children's show? Like that.

Completely lacking in this article: How the newsletter could be printed for decades without anyone on the staff even being aware of the contents. Yes, Stewart Rhodes claims that he never saw anything racist while working there. If he said otherwise, he would have to explain while he was still working for a blatant racist. Unfortunately, that still doesn't explain how so many articles could slip through without a single staffer being aware of them.

It's pretty funny, and pretty sad. It seems that whenever we have evidence that Ron Paul is a racist, the best that the Paulbots can do is say, "Oh yeah? Well, what about these photos of Ron Paul hanging out with black people? And he's not lynching them or throwing things at their heads or nothing!" For instance, in light of the recent Kirchick scandal, the best that the camp could do was to distribute a photos from the 1960s of Ron Paul standing next to a black family. The Paulbots at the ronpaulwarroom acted as though this one photo completely disproved all accusations of racism, with comments like, "Nice research, M. York. Too bad the major media didn’t have time to check this story out before spreading it like so much manure on a garden."

There are even people in that thread who are trying to spin the story into saying that the woman in that photo was actually Rosa Parks. Because that's exactly how Rosa Parks looked in that era. Actually, that's exactly how all black people look, period. All black people look alike. One of them writes, "Stokely Carmichael, I believe is the gentleman on the left side of the photo. I don’t recognize the man to the right of Rosa but he looks familiar. I believe he worked with Martin Luther King too."

The problem with this type of rebuttal is that it is incredibly insulting. First off, it does nothing to refute the evidence. Second, you're assuming that because a few black people support Ron Paul, then they all must support Ron Paul. Remember, only 10% of black people vote republican, so how can the small group of Paul supporters speak for the entire race? Third, it shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding on what racism actually is. Here's a hint: Just because you don't own slaves, that doesn't mean that you're not a racism.

But what's even funnier is how we always seem to see the exact same photos, and the exact same youtube videos, regardless of the board I happen to visit. It's almost comical, as though whenever a black republican uploads a photo of himself standing next to Ron Paul, the Ron Paul community goes bananas. "OMG, another black man supports Ron Paul! Quick, alert the presses! Alert your friends! Tell the world!!!" Again, it's pretty insulting. As those the entire minority population should flock like lemmings over a single Pied Piper.

The latest example comes from a black man named Nelson Linder, President of the Austin chapter of the NAACP. Alex Jones of Prison Planet reports that Linder doesn't think Ron Paul is a racist, and sure enough, the blogosphere is now on fire with their comments of "OMG, THE (Austin) NAACP President says that Ron Paul isn't a racist! Case closed! There is no further discussion!" I see these postings everywhere, from sheep looking to spread the word. Because is one black man supports Ron Paul, then they all should support Ron Paul. Otherwise, they've be acting as collectivists. Mind you, Linder doesn't actually address any of the evidence or the accusations directly. All that he says is that he doesn't believe that Ron Paul is a racist, and that Ron Paul was being quoted out of context. Great. And there are women out there who believe that Richard Ramirez is innocent, but that doesn't disprove the fact that Ramirez was a murderer and a rapist. "I believe" is not an argument.

Why is it that when a white supremacist supports Ron Paul, the Paulbots will dismiss it as irrelevant, but when a black person supports Ron Paul, OMG, it becomes the most relevant piece of evidence ever? Especially when Ron Paul is vastly more popular among the white supremacists? It's almost as though there's some sort of double standard. Remember, a white supremacist is defined by his personal ideology, so it's fair to assume that he supports Ron Paul for ideological reason. On the other hand, a black person has absolutely no control over being black. So their reasons for supporting Ron Paul could be completely unrelated.

For instance, Nelson Linder might support Ron Paul because he lives in Ron Paul's district and Ron Paul is good at bringing home earmarks, he might support Ron Paul because he's an active listener of Alex Jones and he believes that 9/11 was an inside job, or he might support Ron Paul because he's wealth and because he doesn't like to pay taxes. Who knows? For some reason, the Paulbots seem to believe that the race of a few supporters is a better indication of your ideology than the ideology of your supporters. Isn't that a bit racist in itself, by any standard?

Update: Ron Paul's website reads, "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism." Does that include the Austin Chapter of the NAACP?

The newsletter FAQ has been updated again. It's late, so I'll proofread it later. The main change has been to include some articles from Reason.com and Cato, which provide a wealth of references and opinions.

By the way, here's a flashback from Ron Paul's 12/23/07 interview on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron Paul: "'Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004: "Paul says no: `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000. No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either. I wasn't convinced he was a conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party: "I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card." If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush 41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for president?

REP. PAUL: Because I represent what Republicanism used to be. I represent the group that wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, the part, that part of the Republican Party that used to be non-interventionists overseas. That was the tradition, the Robert/Taft wing of the party. There was a time when the Republicans defended individual liberty and the Constitution and decreased spending. So the radicals, the ones who really don't belong in the Republican Party and why the Republican Party is shrinking, why the base is so small, is because they don't stand for these ideals any more. So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party. I've been elected 10 times as Republican. I've been a Republican all my life except for that one year that I ran as a Libertarian. But, no, I represent the Republican ideals, I think, much more so that the individuals running for the party right now.

This was three weeks before the Kirchick story broke. Does anyone else notice how Ron Paul never denies Russert's reference to his newsletter?

The campaign at FreeAtLast2008.com have released a new ad, which attempts to use footage and audio from MLK to imply that he would have endorsed Ron Paul's campaign:

This isn't the first time the right wing has pulled a stunt like this. In 1996, advocates for Proposition 209 used images of Martin Luther King in their advertisements, in order to imply that he would be against affirmative action, until the King family protested. Now, it looks like history may be repeating itself. And it's not a coincidence. During the video, the narrator makes the following statement:

"Please join us on January 21st, as we honor Dr. Martin Luther King, by acting together to support Dr. Ron Paul. A new hero who fights for the same American principles of liberty and justice for all."

The last sentence is seems out of place. Out of all the documents you had availabel to you, why quote the pledge of allegiance? This looks like it may be a reference to Ward Connerly, a republican/libertarian who was the main driving force behind proposition 209. With Liberty and Justice For All was the title of his 1996 essay, where he would once again falsely imply that Martin Luther King would have opposed against affirmative action. Ron Paul and his cronies are wrong when they say that they respect Martin Luther King, when what they actually seem to respect is the Ward Connerly reinvention of him. It isn't all that different from what they did to supply side Jesus.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

Some of you may have heard about the conspiracy theories involving "voter fraud" in New Hampshire. Basically, an election worker makes a simple mistake, and the Paultards freak out. It's amazing how they can easily forgive Ron Paul for decades of racist newsletter articles, but one volunteer worker makes an inconsequential mistake about Ron Paul, and suddenly there's hell to pay. The Concord Monitor reports the story:

The assault picked up after lunch. Paul supporters phoning Call claimed to be from the media. Others just yelled, saying she had committed treason, fraud. One person said she should be shot. She received as many as 40 calls that day.

"One person said he was on a nationally syndicated radio station," Call said, "and he has given out my phone number and they need to call the town of Sutton to find out why there's voter fraud."

The voices came from everywhere. California. Ohio. Florida. Michigan. Very few were from New Hampshire.

A man from Texas e-mailed that he was "contacting, by certified mail, the Attorney General of New Hampshire . . . and requesting a complete investigation and prosecution of any and all parties involved."

A police dispatcher in New London said yesterday she'd received inquiries about the clerk's office phone.

Call got a handful of calls that night at home, refusing to pick up whenever an out-of-state number appeared on her screen.

this really only begs one question, If Jennifer Call didn't write the wrong vote down, then:WHO WROTE DOWN THE WRONG VOTE?

gimmie a nameUntil she fesses up who forged the wrong tally for Paul, then she deserves every single little damn bit of hell she receives. Give her Hell till she Confesses who it was that forged the wrong tally. Dont dare let her weasel out with a plea for pity!

what kinda idiots do they have running the voting there if they cant properly record a number from one peice of paper to another. i mean a 7 year old could do that. = clearly indicates fraud, and they thought they could slide with it. Look to the person that Actually wrote the Zero vote down for Paul. THAT guy is the criminal here.

Ever wonder what goes on inside the head of a Ron Paul supporter who isn't a giant racist and actually has to rationalize supporting a blatantly lying candidate? Here you can have a look at how a Ron Paul supporters off the Ron Paul forums reacts to the revelations about the newsletters, tries to cope with it and adopts a "party line" which he doesn't really believe himself.

It's an instructive look not only inside the Ron Paul campaign but inside a mind warped by propaganda and finding no choice but to "learn to love big brother" in the form of Ron Paul.

It's a story told in screenshots of how the human mind adapts to believing in lies. Since it's graphic intensive, it's rendered in a separate screen.

This article needs to be seen to be believed. We all knew that the Paultards were delusional freaks who would bend over backwards to defend Ron Paul, but rarely do we see one who is willing to chronicle his thought process, out loud, from beginning to end. The next time you're dealing with a particularly stubborn Paultard, I recommend that you point them to this article, so that everyone can have a good laugh at DaronWestbrooke's expense.

Keli Ata, a commenter at Sultan's blog, writes the following:

I'm pretty sure there's a psychological term for when one person's ego becomes so totally dependent upon a cult figure that a failure of one is the failure of the other. Daron isn't only defending Ron Paul--he's also defending himself

Was Ron Paul in favor of Martin Luther King Day?If there's one thing that Paulbots love, it's spreading rumors to the point where they are accepted as irrefutable truth, even if there is no real evidence to support it. From Ameros to staff firings to to the idea that Ron Paul voted in favor of Martin Luther King Day. Unfortunately for them, they always seem to be short on actual evidence. Even more unfortunate, Andrew Austin, Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, has dug up at least one example to the contrary. The scan on the right comes from The Paris News (11/21/79).

Ron Paul and LewRockwell.comLewRockwell.com currently features several pieces of Anti-MLK propaganda and other criticisms. For instance, Michael Epstein's Myths of Martin Luther King accuses King of being a plagiarist, a communist, and an adulterer. Despite this, not only does Ron Paul freely choose to associate with Lew Rockwell and write regular columns for him, but Lew Rockwell boasts that his website has received Ron Paul's first Freedom Website Award. The Paultards will likely respond by talking about freedom of speech even if you disagree with the content, but that's irrelevant. I have the freedom of speech as well, but I don't that Ron Paul will award me with a Freedom Website Award anytime soon.

Does Ron Paul support Martin Luther King's actual policies?The following excerpts were pulled from The Right Has a Dream by Paul Rockwell (No relation to Lew as far as I know) and Misreading the Dream by Tim Wise:

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." -MLK, "Why We Can't Wait"

"...for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation." -MLK, 1965 interview

Wise also presents the following real life example of how republicans had come to distort Dr. King's message, until protested by the King family estate:

For example, during the ultimately successful campaign in California to eliminate racial "preferences," supporters of Proposition 209 conjured the image of King repeatedly and, until criticized by the King family, had been planning to air a TV spot showing the "content of their character" segment of King's "Dream" speech.

Ron Paul insists that he considers Martin Luther King to be a hero. Does that mean that he actually supports and respect Dr. King's real policies? Is Ron Paul even familiar with Martin Luther King's real policies? Ron Paul's FreeAtLast2008 campaign appears to be making the same mistake as the Prop 209 campaign, attempting to capitalize on Dr. King's image to promote a platform that he would have opposed.

FreeAtLast2008's DisclaimerWhen FreeAtLast2008 first went public at DailyPaul.com, even some of their own supporters cried foul. One of them wrote the following:

On December 21st, 2007 cactus1010 says:THIS IS NOT LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE KING FAMILY LINK...NOT WITHOUT PERMISSION. YOU CANNOT USE HIS NAME FOR PUBLICITY WITHOUT PERMISSION. AND I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD GO FOR USING IT TO RAISE MONEY AS WELL.

The website founder, Vijay Boyapati thinks that it's important to create a disclaimer disassociating the website from Ron Paul's campaign, but he doesn't think to provide the same courtesy and respect to the family of Doctor King Family Estate. This, despite the fact that all of the graphics and banners rely entirely on the use of Dr. King's image, rather than Ron Paul's. This, despite the fact that Ron Paul has publicly endorsed the campaign in the national media and referred to it as "our" campaign, where as the King Family has not.

Ron Paul to be honored as America’s Civil Rights leader?It just keeps getting worse and worse. Apparently the Paultards are using this event, not just to absolve Ron Paul of racism, but to try to prop him up as the next great civil rights leader. Check out the article here, which writes that freeatlast2008 is "designed to honor both Dr. Paul and Dr. King as Civil Rights leaders," and will "generate a 10 million dollar plus cash infusion for Paul’s campaign along with nationwide marches to honor Dr. Paul and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

In other words, just like a dog can be programmed to associate the idea of a ringing bell with salivation, the Paultards are trying to program their followers to associate the idea of "Dr. Paul" to "Dr. King." When you think Ron Paul, think "Nobel Prize Winner." You may think you're donating to Ron Paul, but you're really donating to civil rights. You may think you see people marching for Dr. King, but they're really marching for Ron Paul. Success! I'm surprised I haven't seen any youtube videos of Paul morphing into King and vice verse, but maybe that's only because I haven't looked

Ron Paul and his "Language"In yesterday's post, I mentioned the January 1991 edition of Paul's newsletter. Here's an excerpt:

The official line among some conservatives and libertarians is that the civil rights movement started out well, but went astray after King’s death. In fact, it was bad from the beginning, never seeking the mere removal of Jim Crow laws, which would have been legitimate, but forced integration and wealth redistribution.

In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday.

The Paultards will claim that this was a ghostwriter. If this was a ghostwriter, then why bring up Ron Paul's personal experience from the 1988 campaign for Libertarian Presidential candidate? Why would he refer to his past congressional votes? The Paultards will claim that this is not Ron Paul's language. Note Paul's criticism of the civil rights movement as "forced integration," a term her would use to justify his vote against the civil rights act in 2004. But is it really Ron Paul's language? Lots of people could use that phrase? Well, maybe. But I found something on google just now.

"forced integration" yields 26,600 results.

"forced integration" +"Ron Paul" yields 4,230 results.

"forced integration" -"Ron Paul" yields 22,100 results.

In other words, if you find a page with the phrase "forced integration" on it, then there's a 1 in 6 chance that the page will somehow be related to Ron Paul. And that's just a general use of the phrase -- rather than in the specific context of an opinion column protesting the civil rights act.

Similarly, when Wolf Blitzer ran the newsletter segment, the first quotation he provided was "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Later, Ron Paul attempted to defended himself by claiming that he didn't "participate in that type of language," only to use that same phrase several more times during the interview.

Friday, January 11, 2008

This is a follow-up to yesterday's CNN story. A transcript is available as well. For those who want a cliff-notes version, the picture below pretty much sums it up:Remember kids, when the Paulbots proclaim that Ron Paul isn't a racist, contradict them. Instead, reply by saying, "Oh, that's right, he's the anti-racist," and then snicker. The snickering is what makes it funny. Oh, and if Ron Paul doesn't see people in groups, then why does his campaign ads promise to end visas for students from "terrorist nations," as though being born in the wrong country somehow makes you a terrorist? The people at Stormfront enjoy that ad so much that it shows up on everyforum post on their site. But the ad isn't racist. It's anti-racist.

Racist: I hate the blacks, and I would like to own them as slaves.Anti-Racist: I love the blacks, and I would like to own them as slaves.

Our FAQ sheet regarding the newsletter has been updated once again. A common Paulbot denial is that the "ghostwriter" had already been fired. But Ron Paul claims that he never knew about the newsletter, and never knew the name of the writer, so his own story would make that impossible. In related news, it turns out that the subscription manager of Ron Paul's newsletter is now the Texas Field Coordinator.

Dear Paultards: Stop leaving comments about how libertarians really are infallible, and how they really can't be racist. Those types of arguments aren't going to win people over. It's not only a non-sequitor, but it's also a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. You can't advocate a policy of "absolute freedom, except when you use your freedom to be racist, which is unacceptable." Doesn't work like that. Especially after you vote for the Civil Rights Act because it infringes on your freedom to discriminate.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

In today's interview with Wolf Blitzer, Ron Paul claims that he's the "anti-racist," and denies the allegations against him involving the recent newsletter. As proof of this fact, he lists the upcoming freeatlast2008, where he plans to hold his next "money bomb" on Martin Luther King Day. This is an event that's so tasteless that even a large group of Paultards from the ronpaulforums thought that it was a bad idea, although mostly because they didn't want to sully Dr. Paul's reputation by associating him with a filthy communist. I haven't written much about this in the past, because a) it didn't seem to be getting much publicity, and b) the Paultards could deny it by insisting that it wasn't part of the official campaign. Guess what? Not anymore. Check 1:50 into the video.

Hey Ron Paul, here's a newsflash: If you want to convince people that you aren't a racist, then using your own name to raise money for minority causes might help. On the other hand, exploiting Martin Luther King Day for yourpersonal benefit, and without the permission of his family, makes it even worse. It's like the people who try to show off their patriotism by selling cheap plastic flags that were made in China at $5 a pop. Does Ron Paul think that minorities are stupid, and won't even notice? He must There is no other explanation for this.

Ron Paul wants to claim that he is the anti-racist candidate, so I'm going to say four words that are long overdue, and which I haven't said until now: Fuck you, Ron Paul. You can't even handle the racism in your own staff in your own name, how the fuck can you proclaim to be the anti-racist candidate for the entire country? In order to bolster his point, Ron Paul uses some weak logic to say that he is the only candidate on either side willing to protect minorities from drug laws. There are some problems with this:

Yes, the war on drugs unfairly hurts minorities. A lot of things do, because minorities tend to be the least capable of defending themselves from abuse. Ron Paul's opposition to the war on drugs is entirely coincidental. Even if war on drugs was racially equitable, he would still oppose it.

Ron Paul isn't going to end the war on drugs, nor will he protect people from anti-drug laws. He's simply going to make it a state issue, like he wants to do for abortion and gay rights. In other words, Ron Paul isn't going to end the war on drugs. He's going to end the war on some drugs, in some states.

The main reason why the war on drugs is racist is because the inequalities involving cocaine enforcement. Guess what? Cocaine would still be illegal at the state level.

At best, most states would only decriminalize medicinal marijuana, which requires a prescription. Of course, most of the leading democrats have promised to decriminalize medicinal marijuana at the federal level as well. So what's your point?

Dear Paultards, I know that I have made the zombie comparison before, so let me make this clear: Leave the dead alone. Ron Paul is not Guy Fawkes, he is not Thomas Jefferson, he is not Mahatma Gandhi, and he sure as heck is not Martin Luther King. Stop exploiting the memories of dead people who can't speak for themselves. Why isn't it enough for Ron Paul to just be Ron Paul? Why can't you hoist Ron Paul up on his own accomplishments, rather than the accomplishments of others? Oh, that's right, because Ron Paul sucks, and his own list of accomplishments are non-existent. Good job.

I suggest that everyone write to the Martin Luther King Estate and ask them how they feel about Ron Paul using Dr. King's name for personal gain. Let's see how they respond. Surely, Ron Paul would have taken this simple step of seeing how they felt about his upcoming fund raiser before boasting about it on the air? I mean, it's not like he's completely incompetent and uncaring to the opinions of minorities, right?

Update: To everyone crying "That's a grassroots efforts, Ron Paul can't be held responsible!" don't bother. Ron Paul is the one bringing up the money bomb, and he's bringing it up in a way to suggest that it should absolve him of racism. He refers to the money bomb in the first person plural, rather than the third person plural. So Ron Paul still wants to take credit for this event, while denying responsibility for it. Gee, where have we seen that before?

Meanwhile, a small group of Paultards at the ronpaulforums are disgusted by how Ron Paul is handling the matter, and demanding that his campaign do a better job at running damage control. Others continue to bury their head in the sand and insist that the problem has already been dealt with, and should never be brought up ever again. Guys, that's the sort of indifferent attitude that keeps you out of touch with the American people. The best quote comes from a person named Shavenyak:

Being a libertarian is inherently anti-racist. That alone should remove all doubt.

Ah yes, I forgot about the holier-than-thou "libertarians are infallible, and you're a full to ever think otherwise" defense. That argument must go over great in the real world. Especially among non-libertarians. I think the next libertarian candidate should have the slogan, "Vote for us, we're inherently better than you are."

We are losing big time with all these women voting for Huck/Mccain/Romney. What the hell these women thinking? Look at all the CNN exit polls. Ron only gets few percent of the women votes!! This is outrageous! All people here mostly guys?! Are meetup group people mainly guys?! Our men have no girlfriends/spouse/mistress?? Start talking to girls! Make them fall in love in Ron Paul by telling them the message of liberty! If that does not work, make them fall in love with Ron by falling in love with you. There are millions of desperate housewives, young girls, hillary girls waiting to hear our message of liberty!

That's right, Paultards. How dare you hypothetically associate yourself with women folk who have support a different candidate. What's wrong with you? You need to be all, "Bitch! Where's my dinner? And then after you fix my dinner, I want you to vote for Ron Paul! Bitch!"

Ron Paul doesn't like to speak in emotions. The womens can't understand him.

And it's exactly that sort of attitude that makes their lack of success among women all the more baffling. I think I understand the sway of the Ron Paul meetup groups. It's probably the closest thing that any of their membership have gotten to human contact in their entire lives.

In another attempt to explain their crushing defeat, the Paultards have reverted to a new strategy: Insist that no one understands them because they're just too damned intelligent. Yes, a group of people who can't even grasp the concept of random sampling are much smarter than you are. How do they know this? Because someone found a chart showing that some people have higher IQs than other people, so we can safely conclude that the people with higher IQs must be Ron Paul supporters. It's the sort perfectly sound logic you would come to expect from an intellectually superior individual.

Of course, the Paultards can't help but gush over their "discovery," and using that to rationalize their unhappiness and misery. It doesn't dawn on most of them that the bell curve is symmetrical and therefore goes both ways, that measuring IQ isn't the same thing as measuring an adherence to a specific ideology, and that bragging about your penis size IQ score doesn't hold much weight when you do it online.

Whenever libertarians talk to me about taxes and charity, I always think back to the opening scene from Reservoir Dogs, when Steve Buscemi tries to explain why he doesn't tip the waitress. Steve tries to take a principled stand on how he doesn't tip because society says he has to, but what it really boils down to is this: Steve Buscemi is a cheap bastard, who doesn't like to give his money to other people. At one point, one of the characters points out that the waitresses has to pay taxes on the tips, and Steve Buscemi answers back with, "Show me a paper that says the government shouldn't do that, I'll sign it. I'll vote for it. But what I won't do is play ball."

Ladies and gentleman, I now present you with the latest Paultard strategy to win votes after their humiliating defeat in New Hampshire, No Taxes on Tips. After watching all of their other efforts fail, this is what they're hoping that it will all come down to. Because yeah, Ron Paul might be crazy. He might be incompetent, he might be racist, he might deny evolution and attract the crazy vote. On the other hand, Ron Paul will make it so that you can stiff your waitress, completely guilt free. So I think it's worth it.

In an unsurprising turn of events, the Paultards are once again proving themselves to be sore losers. Some blogs have expressed disbelief over the fact that Ron Paul's performance in New Hampshire could be worse than his performance in Iowa, and are now crying foul. It turns out that New Hampshire had over twice the turnout that Iowa did, and it's a lot harder to spam elections when other people actually show up.

Well, the results for New Hampshire are out. Ron Paul once again takes 5th place, and falls back into single digits. This defeat is even more crushing when you consider the fact that New Hampshire is generally considered to be the most libertarian state in the nation, home of the failed Free State Project. This proves what we knew all along: A small group of dedicated spammers and trolls do not speak for the entire nation.

Ron Paul voters are less likely to have a college degree than the average republican.

Ron Paul has the highest unfavorable rating of any other republican (57%). Second place goes to Mike Huckabee (44%). This refutes the argument of "The more people hear about Ron Paul, the more they like him."

Only 24% of republicans who believe that Iraq is most important issue. Of those, McCain supporters outnumber Paul supporters 6:1. Romney supporters outnumber Paul supporters 3:1. That's bad, since this is Ron Paul's main selling point.

In general, republicans favor reducing the deficit over cutting taxes by a margin of 54% to 44%.

81% of republicans are worried about terrorism, the remaining 18% are not.

Generally, the more recently the voter made up their mind, the less likely they will have voted for Ron Paul. This, again, suggests that Ron Paul has tapped out most of his available base.